While picking a Democratic presidential nominee has proven difficult for many Democrats and Independents, polls clearly show that voters are not interested in a third Bush term, which would surely occur with a vote for any of the Republican candidates.Indeed, who could blame voters for being turned-off to the Bush Republicans who, in seven years, have brought America to its knees? By almost every standard and measurement you choose, the U.S. is in worse condition now than it was in 2001, when G.W. replaced Bill Clinton as president.

Whether considering our national security and how the world views us, our broken healthcare system, the impending global warming crisis, the weakening dollar, or the economy analysts now say is in recession, after eight years of Republican misrule the challenges facing whichever Democrat is elected president will be daunting in the extreme.

Democrats are blessed this election cycle with a group of candidates who have all offered policy changes and prescriptions that would be improvements over the status quo of four more years of Republican rule.

And contrary to what some have said, all the candidates' positions on most issues have been reasonably well articulated on their respective Web sites and in their speeches and debates. Whether the candidates will actually be successful following through with their campaign promises is a question for another day.

Each of the three leading Democrats -- Edwards, Obama and Clinton -- offers compelling reasons why he or she should be elected. But each candidate also comes with "baggage" that could make their election in November problematic.

Until now, the question most people have focused on is whether it's more important to be the candidate who represents "change" or "experience." While consideration of this question is relevant, it really doesn't get to the matter of who would be the best president.

Simply having legislative experience or saying you will bring change, as Clinton and Obama have done, doesn't necessarily mean you're the most qualified. The more meaningful questions would be: What have you accomplished with your experience? What specific changes will your election bring?

But even more important than change or experience, is whether a candidate possesses the qualities of good judgment, wisdom, patience, political courage and compassion.

While the decision of which Democrat to choose has been difficult, the choices, at least for this writer, have been narrowed. Hillary Clinton will have my vote in the general election if she ends up as the party's nominee, but I won't be voting for her in the Feb. 5 Massachusetts primary.

As wonderful as it would be to finally elect the nation's first female president, the dynastic implications of four more Clinton White House years after four years of Bush senior, followed by Bill Clinton, followed by Bush junior is simply too much.

Hillary's intelligence, maturity, toughness and strength are obvious, but Hillary and Bill Clinton bring with them a polarizing and cynical view of politics that the country needs to leave behind.

The other key reason for my unease with her candidacy is that she has still refused to acknowledge the error of her vote for the Iraq war and hascompounded that with her more recent vote giving President Bush the authority to use force in Iran. If she can't see the failings in such foreign policy actions, then she just might continue Bush's policy of fighting so-called preemptive wars -- a dangerous and unacceptable prospect.

So while my choices between the candidates have been made clearer, deciding between Edwards and Obama will not be easy. An Obama candidacy, and his election in November, would give the country its first African-American president and would change immediately how the rest of the world perceives America. Another mark in his favor is that he knew (and said so in 2002) that an invasion of Iraq was unjustified and would create many unforeseen problems.

While he was not yet a U.S. senator, his rejection of Bush's war (supported by too many Democrats) showed the kind of political courage so rarely seen these days by elected officials of any office.

Obama's candidacy clearly brings an optimism, hope for true change and fresh new outlook that the country desperately needs. In addition, based on what has happened in previous primaries and caucuses, he has the ability to engage young voters -- something very necessary for the Democratic Party's and the country's future.

Like Obama, John Edwards would be an agent for the substantial change that must occur in Washington. But only Edwards seems to understand that none of that change will be possible unless the power of corporations is checked. A substantial part of his campaign has focused on the plight of the working class, the shrinking middle class and the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us.

While he did originally support the Iraq war, unlike Hillary he now understands that Americans want the occupation ended and our troops brought home.

Some have criticized Edwards for being too strident or "angry," but he clearly understands that if real change (the kind that will actually improve the lives of most Americans) is to occur, it will require some "fighting." My concern with Obama is whether he can be the kind of fighter that the times require.

For whom should I vote, Obama or Edwards? Thankfully, I (and the rest in Massachusetts who are still undecided) have a whole 11 days to make up our minds.